IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0340083.html

Intuitive or deliberative dishonesty: The effect of abstract versus concrete victim

Author

Listed:
  • Jiayu Cheng
  • Haoran Wang
  • Yue Liu
  • Chongxiang Wang
  • Qingzhou Sun
  • Bruno Verschuere
  • Liyang Sai

Abstract

There has been ongoing debate over whether people are intuitively honest or intuitively dishonest. A recent social harm account was proposed to address this debate: dishonesty is intuitive when cheating inflicts harm on an abstract other while honesty is intuitive when cheating inflicts harm on a concrete other. This pre-registered and well-powered study (n = 764) aims to directly test this account by using a time pressure manipulation. Specifically, we examined whether time pressure (versus self-paced conditions) would lead to increased cheating depending on whether the harmed party was concrete or abstract. The results showed no significant effect of time pressure on cheating behavior. However, the harm-type manipulation produced findings that contradicted those reported in previous studies. Given the low replication rates and reliance on controversial experimental manipulations in this area, our findings underscore the importance of further pre-registered research to rigorously evaluate the roles of time pressure and social harm in shaping intuitive (dis)honesty.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiayu Cheng & Haoran Wang & Yue Liu & Chongxiang Wang & Qingzhou Sun & Bruno Verschuere & Liyang Sai, 2026. "Intuitive or deliberative dishonesty: The effect of abstract versus concrete victim," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0340083
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0340083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0340083
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0340083&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0340083?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Capraro, Valerio & Schulz, Jonathan & Rand, David G., 2019. "Time pressure and honesty in a deception game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 93-99.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0218076 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Duc Huynh, Toan Luu, 2020. "Replication: Cheating, loss aversion, and moral attitudes in Vietnam," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Christian P Janssen & Emma Everaert & Heleen M A Hendriksen & Ghislaine L Mensing & Laura J Tigchelaar & Hendrik Nunner, 2019. "The influence of rewards on (sub-)optimal interleaving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-25, March.
    4. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1072-1093 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Beck, Tobias, 2021. "How the honesty oath works: Quick, intuitive truth telling under oath," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Blazquiz-Pulido, Juan Francisco & Polonio, Luca & Bilancini, Ennio, 2024. "Who's the deceiver? Identifying deceptive intentions in communication," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 451-466.
    7. Diogo Geraldes & Franziska Heinicke & Duk Gyoo Kim, 2022. "The Effect of Chosen or Given Luck on Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9904, CESifo.
    8. Ekström, Mathias, 2021. "The (un)compromise effect: How suggested alternatives can promote active choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Isler, Ozan & Gächter, Simon, 2022. "Conforming with peers in honesty and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 75-86.
    10. Kumar Padamwar, Pravesh & Kumar Kalakbandi, Vinay & Dawra, Jagrook, 2023. "Deliberation does not make the attraction effect disappear: The role of induced cognitive reflection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Diogo Geraldes & Franziska Heinicke & Duk Gyoo Kim, 2024. "Does Honesty Respond to Unrelated Luck?," CESifo Working Paper Series 11602, CESifo.
    12. Prochazka, Jakub & Fedoseeva, Yulia & Houdek, Petr, 2021. "A field experiment on dishonesty: A registered replication of Azar et al. (2013)," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Edward Cartwright & Lian Xue & Charlotte Brown, 2020. "Are People Willing to Tell Pareto White Lies? A Review and New Experimental Evidence," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Dickinson, David L & McEvoy, David M, 2021. "Further from the truth: The impact of moving from in-person to online settings on dishonest behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Celadin, Tatiana, 2024. "Manipulating response times in the cognitive reflection test: Time delay boosts deliberation, time pressure hinders it," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Sooter, Nina M. & Brandon, Rajna Gibson & Ugazio, Giuseppe, 2024. "Honesty is predicted by moral values and economic incentives but is unaffected by acute stress," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Isler, Ozan & Yilmaz, Onurcan & Dogruyol, Burak, 2020. "Activating reflective thinking with decision justification and debiasing training," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(6), pages 926-938, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0340083. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.